DAVID KAY FROM WORKINGTON SENTENCED FOR SEXUAL ABUSE IN CUMBRIA
| Red Rose Database
Workington Child Sexual Abuser
In September 2009, a serious case of abuse involving a youth worker from Workington has come to light, highlighting significant concerns about safeguarding and employment vetting procedures. David Kay, aged 63, was sentenced to four years in prison after being found guilty of engaging in sexual activities with a minor while holding a position of trust. The court proceedings took place at Carlisle Crown Court, where Judge Peter Hughes QC expressed his deep concern over how Kay was able to secure employment with Cumbria’s Connexions youth advice service despite a troubling history.
The victim in this case was a vulnerable young woman who had recently turned 17 when her interactions with Kay began. The court was informed that she had a background marked by low self-esteem and had previously dropped out of school, making her particularly susceptible to exploitation. The girl’s mother had brought her to the Connexions organization in an effort to help her regain stability and improve her prospects.
According to the evidence presented, David Kay exploited his role as a project worker at Connexions to manipulate and sexually exploit the young woman. The court heard that Kay, then in his late 50s, initially met the girl in a professional capacity, but their relationship quickly took a sinister turn. Kay expressed romantic interest in her, which led to a series of inappropriate communications, including text messages and phone calls. The victim’s impact statement revealed how Kay’s influence severely affected her mental health and trust in adults, as he told her she would struggle at college, that her peers were using her, and that she could not trust the adults trying to help her.
The situation escalated when Kay, after being suspended by his colleagues due to suspicions, met the girl in a caravan outside his residence. It was there that he attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. Kay also tried to persuade her to withdraw her allegations, claiming her accusations were mere fantasies. The girl, overwhelmed and frightened, did not report the incident to the police until three years later, indicating a pattern of manipulation and intimidation.
Judge Hughes emphasized the gravity of the case, noting that Kay’s previous employment history raised serious questions about the vetting process. It was revealed that Kay had previously worked as a youth justice worker with Social Services in North Yorkshire, where he was disciplined for inappropriate conduct towards adolescent girls. Despite this, he was dismissed, reinstated in a different role, and eventually made redundant. Strikingly, his former employers provided him with a reference that omitted any mention of his past disciplinary issues, which ultimately facilitated his employment with Connexions in Workington.
The judge called for a thorough investigation into how Kay was able to obtain such a position, stressing the importance of reviewing employment procedures to prevent similar cases in the future. Kay’s defense argued that he was a broken man, devastated by the loss of his reputation and employment opportunities, and expressed remorse for his actions.
At sentencing, Judge Hughes made it clear that Kay, who was 41 years older than his victim at the time of the offenses, was fully aware of his professional responsibilities and the trust placed in him. As part of his sentence, Kay was placed on the Sex Offenders Register indefinitely and was banned for life from working with children or having unsupervised contact with minors, except for his own grandchildren. The court reaffirmed that it is a specific offense for someone in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 in their care, and Kay was convicted by a jury despite denying the charges.
This case underscores the critical need for rigorous background checks and oversight in roles involving vulnerable young people, especially when previous misconduct has been documented but not properly disclosed or considered during employment screening.
The victim in this case was a vulnerable young woman who had recently turned 17 when her interactions with Kay began. The court was informed that she had a background marked by low self-esteem and had previously dropped out of school, making her particularly susceptible to exploitation. The girl’s mother had brought her to the Connexions organization in an effort to help her regain stability and improve her prospects.
According to the evidence presented, David Kay exploited his role as a project worker at Connexions to manipulate and sexually exploit the young woman. The court heard that Kay, then in his late 50s, initially met the girl in a professional capacity, but their relationship quickly took a sinister turn. Kay expressed romantic interest in her, which led to a series of inappropriate communications, including text messages and phone calls. The victim’s impact statement revealed how Kay’s influence severely affected her mental health and trust in adults, as he told her she would struggle at college, that her peers were using her, and that she could not trust the adults trying to help her.
The situation escalated when Kay, after being suspended by his colleagues due to suspicions, met the girl in a caravan outside his residence. It was there that he attempted to have sexual intercourse with her. Kay also tried to persuade her to withdraw her allegations, claiming her accusations were mere fantasies. The girl, overwhelmed and frightened, did not report the incident to the police until three years later, indicating a pattern of manipulation and intimidation.
Judge Hughes emphasized the gravity of the case, noting that Kay’s previous employment history raised serious questions about the vetting process. It was revealed that Kay had previously worked as a youth justice worker with Social Services in North Yorkshire, where he was disciplined for inappropriate conduct towards adolescent girls. Despite this, he was dismissed, reinstated in a different role, and eventually made redundant. Strikingly, his former employers provided him with a reference that omitted any mention of his past disciplinary issues, which ultimately facilitated his employment with Connexions in Workington.
The judge called for a thorough investigation into how Kay was able to obtain such a position, stressing the importance of reviewing employment procedures to prevent similar cases in the future. Kay’s defense argued that he was a broken man, devastated by the loss of his reputation and employment opportunities, and expressed remorse for his actions.
At sentencing, Judge Hughes made it clear that Kay, who was 41 years older than his victim at the time of the offenses, was fully aware of his professional responsibilities and the trust placed in him. As part of his sentence, Kay was placed on the Sex Offenders Register indefinitely and was banned for life from working with children or having unsupervised contact with minors, except for his own grandchildren. The court reaffirmed that it is a specific offense for someone in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 in their care, and Kay was convicted by a jury despite denying the charges.
This case underscores the critical need for rigorous background checks and oversight in roles involving vulnerable young people, especially when previous misconduct has been documented but not properly disclosed or considered during employment screening.